On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52:19AM +0200, Javier González wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.26, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This usually happens if we are developing with qemu and ll2pmode has > > default value. Even in that case message seems wrong. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c > > index 470ef04..c5c1337 100644 > > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c > > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c > > @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ static void *pblk_init(struct nvm_tgt_dev *dev, struct > > gendisk *tdisk, > > int ret; > > > > if (dev->identity.dom & NVM_RSP_L2P) { > > - pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table not supported. (%x)\n", > > + pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table supported. (%x)\n", > > dev->identity.dom); > > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > } > > -- > > 2.5.0 > > You're right. This is inherited from rrpc. > > Can we instead write "pblk: full host-side L2P table not supported"? > People will not know about the hybrid device/host L2P as time goes by > and it will just be confusing. I'm not even sure this will be part of > the 2.0 spec, so it will probably go away with time... >
Sure. I was confused the first time. This is better. It would be great if this is done while picking up. I can repost as well if need be. Thanks,
